CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[2A_Tom]

It is " ... born of water AND of the Spirit". I have always held that verse to mean we accept Christ as our savior and be baptized (Full disclosure: I was a practicing Baptist until about the age of 13)

It is all part of one rebirth. Do you not find it significant that Jesus himself was baptized

You were born of a woman whose water broke.

If you have trusted Jesus Christ as Saviour, You are born of the Spirit.

If you asked Jesus to Save you and got baptized to be Saved, you may or may not be saved. I would have no idea whether you trusted Christ, got Baptized and then someone and then were taught the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration or were trusting baptisn from the beginning.

The first is how I was taught. I trusted Jesus Christ to save me, and then I was taught the (yo yo) work and sinlessness required to go to Heaven.

 

[BugI02]

You were born of a woman whose water broke.

If you have trusted Jesus Christ as Saviour, You are born of the Spirit.

If you asked Jesus to Save you and got baptized to be Saved, you may or may not be saved. I would have no idea whether you trusted Christ, got Baptized and then someone and then were taught the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration or were trusting baptisn from the beginning.

The first is how I was taught. I trusted Jesus Christ to save me, and then I was taught the (yo yo) work and sinlessness required to go to Heaven.

So, are you saying if Caesar had converted he could not be born again?

The way I remember it, you accept Christ as your savior first and then are baptized into that church. I don't recall the actual teaching around the event, but I recall my mother felt you would not see heaven if you weren't baptized

What I have read as an adult teaches me to believe accepting Christ as my savior is necessary and sufficient for salvation. Part of my journey has been seeking answers to the confusion that can arise from verses such as I quoted. More often than not a particular church's beliefs are treated as settled and not open to question or explanation, sort of 'believe as we do because we're right'

I can understand that the more common situation is someone wanting to join the congregation, not argue (for want of a better term) doctrine. Perhaps I'm just doing it wrong

 

[2A_Tom]

That is why the Scripture tells us in

2 Timothy 2:15 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Reading your Bible with some kind of plan is a really good idea. Some people study by looking at a verse here and comparing a verse there and reading someones comments on what they think and never, or out of DUTY once or twice in their lifetimes, read through the Bible. (It takes 72 hours to read through the Bible, at a reading aloud pace. What is that in a lifetime or even in a year. I know a young lady who read through the Bible every month while she was in high school.)

The problem is that the clarity of what G-d says in the Bible only comes when you become familiar with the whole counsel of G-d.

2 Timothy 3:16 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:20 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Unless you have a grasp of the entire Bible you are just taking someone else's word for what the Scripture means. Luke speaking of the Berean's said,

Acts 17:11 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Thessalonians accepted the words of Paul as the word of G_d and were saved, but the Berean's studied and searched to see if what Paul was saying was Scripturally sound.

As for church doctrine Jesus says

Matthew 15:14 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

I am not saying that you should not go to a Church and listen to a preacher, only that you should have such a grasp on the Bible that you will know if something does not ring true you will notice it and you can search the Scriptures to see if it is right or not.

 

[2A_Tom]

I am sorry, i have no idea what you are saying about ceasr.

 

[rvb]

(It takes 72 hours to read through the Bible, at a reading aloud pace. What is that in a lifetime or even in a year. I know a young lady who read through the Bible every month while she was in high school.)

Guess I'm just slow!
Takes me 10-11 months, trying to average about 4 chapters a night, 30-60 minutes a night.

Granted I'm usually looking up commentary or cross referencing other scriptures or taking notes, or meditating on what I read, etc.
Always learning something new (or re-learning something I forgot! haha)

1189 chapters. To do it in 72 hours would be 16.5 chapters per hour. To read it all in a month would be about 40 chapters per day! wow. hope she spent as much time on homework!

-rvb

 

[2A_Tom]

I read 5 chapters a day, about 30 to 60 minutes each morning. I start in January and when I finish I pick and choose what books I will reread. I just finished re reading the New Testament and have begun Psalms. Yes there is study and I have to do a lot of cross referencing to post in this thread.

I have had Alexander Scourby on cassette years ago 48 tapes, 45 minutes each, 72 hours total, I had it on an mp3 and would listen all day at work and it took a little over a week to listen to it all. I have never done the 72 hour read along with him, but I have known a couple of people that have. Obviously not all at one sitting.

She was an A/B student, married a missionary, spent several years on the field in Nigeria, they had to come home for their children's health.

ETA: She was on a full scholarship to a school that our Church has for inner city Chicago students. She did it as an act of thanks for the investment G-d was making in her life. Believe me she, is t testament to his grace.

 

[BugI02]

I am sorry, i have no idea what you are saying about ceasr.

He was born via the eponymously named Caesarian section - so he was not born of a woman whose water had broken

 

[2A_Tom]

I am suspecting that her amniotic fluid did flush, no matter whether through the birth canal or otherwise.

 

[DragonGunner]

So baptism is not a work?

Correct...if it was a work we could justify we worked for our salvation. So its not a work, is repentance a work? or receiving the Holy Ghost a work? Now what our my works that you spoke of? the Bible is very easy to understand, just read the scriptures I shared again if needed.

 

[rvb]

She was an A/B student, married a missionary, spent several years on the field in Nigeria, they had to come home for their children's health.

ETA: She was on a full scholarship to a school that our Church has for inner city Chicago students. She did it as an act of thanks for the investment G-d was making in her life. Believe me she, is t testament to his grace.

neat!

 

[2A_Tom]

The verse said show me and I will show you.

James was not boasting (Ephesians 2:8) that he was saved by his works, he (1 John 5:2, John 13:35 + John 14:15) was stating that he could not tell that someone was saved unless they acted like it.

They, not G-d, shall know you...

 

[CENTURIATOR]

Happy First Sunday in Advent everyone!

 

[2A_Tom]

When I was a newly Saved I tried starting in Genesis and reading through. My problem is that I am slightly dyslexic and am an aural reader. I am not stupid, in fact I am considered very smart by many. I just have a short circuit in my head that makes me a very slow reader.

Reading through the Bible did not work for me. For years I would read a book here and a book there and not really keep track. I was learning, studying and hearing the Word preached, but wasn't sure if I had actually read every word.

One day I was talking to a preacher friend about it and he suggested a record that he had given to his congregation. It looks like this,

You can get a PDF file here. http://www.matthewweathers.com/year2006/images/Bible_Reading_Record.pdf

You put a slash through the chapter as you read. If you want you can make an x the second time and so on.

I posted it in case there may be someone who struggles the same as I once did.

 

[Ziggidy]

When I was a newly Saved I tried starting in Genesis and reading through. My problem is that I am slightly dyslexic and am an aural reader. I am not stupid, in fact I am considered very smart by many. I just have a short circuit in my head that makes me a very slow reader.

Reading through the Bible did not work for me. For years I would read a book here and a book there and not really keep track. I was learning, studying and hearing the Word preached, but wasn't sure if I had actually read every word.

One day I was talking to a preacher friend about it and he suggested a record that he had given to his congregation. It looks like this,

You can get a PDF file here. http://www.matthewweathers.com/year2006/images/Bible_Reading_Record.pdf

You put a slash through the chapter as you read. If you want you can make an x the second time and so on.

I posted it in case there may be someone who struggles the same as I once did.

Thanks, I just printed it.....

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[CampingJosh]

The verse said show me and I will show you.

James was not boasting (Ephesians 2:8) that he was saved by his works, he (1 John 5:2, John 13:35 + John 14:15) was stating that he could not tell that someone was saved unless they acted like it.

They, not G-d, shall know you...

Agree completely!
Disagree completely!

James 2:14 has two sentences. The second sentence is (NIV) as "Can such faith save them?" But the English translation leaves out a Greek word; the first word in James's sentences is the word "no." He didn't leave it implicit; he said explicitly that a so-called faith that doesn't lead to actions is not what Scripture talks about when saying that we are saved by faith.

Saving faith can't be some intellectual assent to a proposed set of facts. Faith--to be real--has to be lived out. If your faith is simply believing that God exists, you have the same faith as a demon.

Nobody can be saved by works. But faith that doesn't prompt the Christian to works isn't even a real thing.

 

[CampingJosh]

I also want to add this, as it has bugged me about discussions re: "faith alone" for many years now.

To everyone who argues for what is the bare minimum requirement to be saved: I feel sorry for your spouse! A loving relationship should never be about figuring out the minimum requirement and doing exactly that.
If you love Christ and you read Scripture that says Christ's disciples are to be baptized, why argue about "essentials"? Why not just do the thing that you know the God who loves you wants you to do? If we really respond to Christ's love with love in return, it shouldn't take long at all to get past any minimum requirement yet set out in this thread.

Perhaps that's not what it is intended to sound like, but this kind of discussion always sounds to me more like a contract negotiation than bride-and-groom relationship that is used to describe Christ's relationship with the Church (the whole body of believers). If you love your spouse, you don't spend a bunch of time finding the minimum of what you have to do. You just consistently show that love.

Perhaps that's wimpy theology, but it's good for a relationship.

 

[Dead Duck]

I also want to add this, as it has bugged me about discussions re: "faith alone" for many years now.

To everyone who argues for what is the bare minimum requirement to be saved: I feel sorry for your spouse! A loving relationship should never be about figuring out the minimum requirement and doing exactly that.
If you love Christ and you read Scripture that says Christ's disciples are to be baptized, why argue about "essentials"? Why not just do the thing that you know the God who loves you wants you to do? If we really respond to Christ's love with love in return, it shouldn't take long at all to get past any minimum requirement yet set out in this thread.

Perhaps that's not what it is intended to sound like, but this kind of discussion always sounds to me more like a contract negotiation than bride-and-groom relationship that is used to describe Christ's relationship with the Church (the whole body of believers). If you love your spouse, you don't spend a bunch of time finding the minimum of what you have to do. You just consistently show that love.

Perhaps that's wimpy theology, but it's good for a relationship.

Nobody is going minimal here.
I just know that you don't NEED a huge list of "To Dos" in order to be accepted into heaven. It doesn't have to be that complicated. Some do want a complex structure for them to follow and that's fine as long as they don't push their regiment on others as "their way is the only way".

Knowing that it's so simple doesn't mean that I don't do good deeds or don't go to church or ask forgiveness.
It just means that I don't need to have a Ruler Nun whacking my knuckles to get me to heaven.
I don't need to recite my catechism before bed every night. Etc...Etc...

I've seen guys have pissing contests (of sorts) with how religious they are and brag about the tally of their "works". I know me. God knows me. We're good.
I have a great relationship with God. We talk all the time and I know exactly where I am with Him........ on His right side as I always have been.

Knowing what's "minimal" to be expected of you is a good basis to start with. You can only grow and move up from there. I think too many folks get so caught up in all this man made-up crap that they forget that basic goal.

I can never get enough of John's book.

Oh and reading the bible in also not a requirement to get in. Although it is recommended reading though.

 

[historian]

When I was a newly Saved I tried starting in Genesis and reading through. My problem is that I am slightly dyslexic and am an aural reader. I am not stupid, in fact I am considered very smart by many. I just have a short circuit in my head that makes me a very slow reader.

Reading through the Bible did not work for me. For years I would read a book here and a book there and not really keep track. I was learning, studying and hearing the Word preached, but wasn't sure if I had actually read every word.

One day I was talking to a preacher friend about it and he suggested a record that he had given to his congregation. It looks like this,

You can get a PDF file here. http://www.matthewweathers.com/year2006/images/Bible_Reading_Record.pdf

You put a slash through the chapter as you read. If you want you can make an x the second time and so on.

I posted it in case there may be someone who struggles the same as I once did.

That's pretty cool. I almost finished this this year until I gave up around the 19th of Last month:

http://www.edginet.org/mcheyne/year_classic_single_letter.pdf

 

[T.Lex]

^^^^ To suggest that the death on the cross, from a human perspective, is a failure should not be stated, it is wrong....without further clarification.

Again, from a human perspective, Christ's death on the cross was a "failure." It is only when viewed from a spiritual perspective that it was a perfect success.

"We" know the outcome. We have the written Word telling us the purpose......we have God telling us it is anything but a failure; it is God's plan spoken throughout history since the beginning.

Yes. And where, exactly, has the pope said anything different?

Sometimes the enemy comes to confuse, create misunderstanding, chaos. Those words certainly did just that.

Sure, when taken out of context by people seeking to create confusion and enmity against Catholicism.

I personally think this pope could have said it differently, more appropriately; such as - To those who were at the foot of the cross and all the spectators, it may have appeared that His death was a failure, but the story does not end there. 3 days later He proved to those who did not understand, it was not a failure but part of God's plann your redemption. That would have been so much better -

Ok. Since you appear to be among the Christians who don't recognize any authority of the pope (and perhaps even consider him "the enemy"), you can say it however you want.

Add to that, his remarks that we common people are not "smart enough" (my paraphrase) to know how to have a personal relationship with Christ and we MUST have the church in there, without the church it is much too dangerous.

It is interesting to me that you are so willing to criticize not just the pope's message, but his delivery, and in the same post express support for the idea that each person has authority for interpreting the Bible and the will of God on their own.

Your "paraphrasing" is a reduction to the absurd.

What would we do without the almighty catholic church? It seems the pope (not just this one) is trying to build up membership...relying on fear, ignorance and such. All bogus.

It's all about Jesus, period.

But when you claim it is just about Jesus, you cannot control people......enter, organized religion - the church.

I think I see the real issue.

Thank you for expressing that. It is very helpful.

So....
If I were catholic, I wouldn't be going to heaven by just opening up my heart to let Him in?

I'm sorry, I want to help provide a Catholic perspective in this thread (and even in this forum at large), but I'm not sure I even understand that question.